Apple could face huge tax bill as Obama calls for new taxes on offshore profits in FY2016 budget

1567810

Comments

  • Reply 181 of 203
    plovellplovell Posts: 801member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Big Brother 84 View Post



    All that money sitting offshore is not working for anyone. 

    Who are you kidding ??

     

    Do you think that Apple gets a big pile or Euros and stuffs them under a mattress? Big mattress, I'll admit.

     

    No - that money is invested. Apple doesn't tell us where or how, but it certainly is working. For Apple shareholders.

  • Reply 182 of 203
    plovellplovell Posts: 801member


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     



    What about the 15 million plus illegal immigrants the Democrats are supporting. Are they going to pay up too? 


    Well if they became American I guess they'd pay income tax.  But otherwise they are already paying every single other type of the thousands of taxes we have correct?


    Most are already paying income tax. In fact, probably paying more than they need to. That's because they have tax withheld but usually don't file a return and get a refund. 

  • Reply 183 of 203
    plovellplovell Posts: 801member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

    I hope people realize that this represents a trend. A trend that will make it worse and worse for businesses and for people with any kind of savings to live in the US. Our government is broke and approaching $17 trillion (!) dollars in debt, including unfunded liabilities...there are a lot of unfunded liabilities!

     

    If these unfunded liabilities are not drastically reduced and the Federal government radically downsized, this generation and the next and the next after that will be stuck with bills that cannot possibly be paid.




    Our government is nowhere near broke. In case you hadn't noticed, the deficit is waaaayyy down from where it was just after the collapse. It's true that there is still a deficit (last surplus we had was under Clinton) but it's manageable.

     

    The biggest unfunded liabilities we have are the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those have sucked funds out of everything else we should be doing, such as roads and bridges. 

  • Reply 184 of 203
    pmcdpmcd Posts: 394member
    plovell wrote: »

    Our government is nowhere near broke. In case you hadn't noticed, the deficit is waaaayyy down from where it was just after the collapse. It's true that there is still a deficit (last surplus we had was under Clinton) but it's manageable.

    The biggest unfunded liabilities we have are the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those have sucked funds out of everything else we should be doing, such as roads and bridges. 

    What is the debt? As far as wars go they traditionally were ways of stimulating economies. Not saying you should be having them but the accounting aspects are quite political.
  • Reply 185 of 203
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pmcd View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by plovell View Post





    Our government is nowhere near broke. In case you hadn't noticed, the deficit is waaaayyy down from where it was just after the collapse. It's true that there is still a deficit (last surplus we had was under Clinton) but it's manageable.



    The biggest unfunded liabilities we have are the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those have sucked funds out of everything else we should be doing, such as roads and bridges. 




    What is the debt? As far as wars go they traditionally were ways of stimulating economies. Not saying you should be having them but the accounting aspects are quite political.

    True. But if you look at history you'll see lots of posters in the 1940's for "War Bonds". Back then, people knew that there was a war on and that they were paying for it. With money and with their lives, or those of their sons.

     

    Now it's "war on the cheap". The funding goes off-budget but is added to the debt and there is no widespread manpower (womanpower) contribution to the military. A recent study showed that a majority of people in the U.S. do not personally know anyone in the military. So when there is a possibility of a war, it's "other people" who go. 

     

    I know there are many good reasons for an all-volunteer military but this is a major DISadvantage. Fondness for war is greatly tempered by having a relative or friend (let alone yourself in a draft) be at risk.

  • Reply 186 of 203
    koopkoop Posts: 337member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post





    There seems to be this pervasive assumption that if you're presented better opportunities in life —  being born into a better family, being born more physically healthy, being born more intelligent than the average person in certain ways, being born with fewer negative mental abnormalities (e.g.: severe anxiety or bipolar disorder), having more positive opportunities in life, having fewer negative obstacles in life — you somehow earned it all and therefore your success undeniably means you work harder than those that aren't as well off as you. It's fucking bullshit, but I don't think they can ever comprehend that making choices in life is still a limited endeavour compared to the lack of choices we must all endure.



    A huge percentage of the poor, particularly the homeless suffer mental illness. In fact it's a leading cause of homelessness. 

     

    Then you have harsh drugs laws that largely damage black communities, including black fathers who in turn are always in jail and never there for their children. Hard to escape poverty because you sold marijuana a few times and your family is left picking up the pieces.

     

    A lack of health insurance and one massive health crisis. Boom, toast. One of the leading causes of bankruptcy. 

     

    I'm sure I could list a few more. But I guess a small amount of abusers in the system seem to be all people think about, which I assume is always brought on by an anecdotal situation or watching too much Fox News. It must make them feel so good to just point the finger and say 'you're lazy, i'm not, so you deserve absolutely nothing'.

     

    With a simple vote in the polls, they can vote for their favorite tea party candidate and indirectly destroy the lives of the suffering to pay down a very tiny fraction of the national debt. Make sure the military spending gets its annual raises, kick the can on infrastructure, taxes stay flat for the wealthy and i'm sure someday wages will increase. Probably should knock down a few more unions, maybe companies will give raises then.

  • Reply 187 of 203
    gctwnlgctwnl Posts: 277member
    In Europe the big US companies dodge taxes like hell. So, the big companies such as Amazon, Apple, Starbuck, etc. do hardly pay taxes in Europe. If they get taxed when they bring the money back, the practical and comical effect will be that EU citizens will provide the money for US taxes but not EU taxes.

    Maybe better: let companies not pay taxes where they are located, but where they sell. Only sales tax, not corporate tax. In an globally connected world, that may be the only fair way.
  • Reply 188 of 203
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by gctwnl View Post



    In Europe the big US companies dodge taxes like hell. So, the big companies such as Amazon, Apple, Starbuck, etc. do hardly pay taxes in Europe. If they get taxed when they bring the money back, the practical and comical effect will be that EU citizens will provide the money for US taxes but not EU taxes.



    Maybe better: let companies not pay taxes where they are located, but where they sell. Only sales tax, not corporate tax. In an globally connected world, that may be the only fair way.

     

    You're joking, right? Sales tax is paid by people buying the product, not by the company selling it. I pay 25% federal income tax. You think it's fair for a multi-billion dollar company to have a lower tax rate than I do? 

  • Reply 189 of 203
    gctwnlgctwnl Posts: 277member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

     

     

    You're joking, right? Sales tax is paid by people buying the product, not by the company selling it. I pay 25% federal income tax. You think it's fair for a multi-billion dollar company to have a lower tax rate than I do? 


     

    It is not the people who buy the product that pay sales tax. It looks that way, but legally/technically, it is the company that is charged sales tax and that passes it on to the customer visibly. It shows the customer: I sold you this book for $10.00 and I have to pay $0.60 in sales tax that I pass on to you. The idea that the customer pays sales tax is strong in the US where this happens very visibly. But everywhere in the world, Sales Tax, VAT, or whatever the name is a tax paid by the seller to the government. Because companies may also deduct sales tax that they have paid themselves, they work internally with net prices. And since non-company entities cannot deduct paid sales tax from to pay sales tax, they pay all in the end.

     

     

    Quote Wikipedia:


    sales tax is a tax paid to a governing body for the sales of certain goods and services. Usually laws allow (or require) the seller to collect funds for the tax from the consumer at the point of purchase.

    Laws may allow sellers to itemize the tax separately from the price of the goods or services, or require it to be included in the price (tax-inclusive). The tax amount is usually calculated by applying a percentage rate to the taxable price of a sale.



     

    So, the seller pays sales tax, but is (generally) allowed to collect the funds from the buyer (without that affecting the sale price). If they choose not to collect that fund, they still have to pay. It is the company, for instance, that has to show in its administration what it sold and from that the sales tax is calculated.

     

    The reason that this sales tax may be collected is to prevent that the production and sale of a product would pay too much accumulated sales tax in the end. If I sell a book to a book store and the book store sells it to a customer, I have to charge sales tax and so does the book store. By letting the book store deduct the sales tax collected by me, the total sales tax in the end is the sales tax rate times the final sale price.

     

    If this deduction would not take place, the final end consumer price would contain a lot of accumulated sales tax if the chain would be long.

    Say, the sales tax rate is 20%. I sell a book for $50 to the store and pay $10 sales tax. They pay $60. They sell it for $100 to the customer and pay $20 sales tax, the customer pays $120. Without deduction, the book store pays $20 and I $10 in sales tax and effectively my part is charged twice. With deduction, the book store pays $10 to the government, the total sales tax that ends up in the government's pocket is $20 independent of the length of the sales chain. That is why collection and deduction are allowed. That limits the total tax the government gets to the sales tax rate times the final price.

     

    In the US, you will see price+tax, in the EU, you will generally only see the total when you shop (so the price you see in the window is the price you pay).

     

    Back to the suggestion:

     

    The total tax rate for a company is the sum of sales tax they pay and corporate tax. If we lower corporate tax (or remove it) but increase sales tax, the tax rate of the company can be higher, the same or lower. If we lower corporate tax and increase sales tax, the net price will go down and the price + sales tax may remain te same.

     

    What I suggest is dropping corporate tax and just leaving sales tax and the sales tax is paid by the company in the country the sales tax was generated, where the sale took place. Small companies should be exempt, they pay local sales tax even on international sales.

     

    The location of a company then becomes irrelevant for taxes and will be governed not by tax evasion but by what location is best for operations.

  • Reply 190 of 203
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by gctwnl View Post

     

    It is not the people who buy the product that pay sales tax. It looks that way, but legally/technically, it is the company that is charged sales tax and that passes it on to the customer visibly. 


     

    Semantics. Bottom line is that sales taxes are regressive. Everyone pays the same tax on the good regardless of their income. 

  • Reply 191 of 203
    gctwnlgctwnl Posts: 277member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

     

     

    Semantics. Bottom line is that sales taxes are regressive. Everyone pays the same tax on the good regardless of their income. 


     

    All the taxes that a corporation pays come in the end from the sales and are thus effectively per sale (regardless of the income of the customers). If you would abolish all taxes except sales tax for companies, the tax companies pay would in fact be progressive, because they are paid in the end by the ones who buy the most, who are also the ones that are the richest. In that sense, it is very much progressive in its effect. Especially so if you establish low sales tax rates for essentials such as food and health and a high rate on luxury goods such as expensive cars and jewellery and such. A progressive consumption tax would probably be ideal, but hard to establish. Hence, you need additional progressive income tax for a decent society.

     

    PS and OT. "Semantics" actually means "meaning", it is interestingly often used these days as "meaningless phrasing". It is an interesting turnaround of meaning by changed use (cf. Uncle Ludwig), comparable with the expression "fat chance!", which originally literally used to mean big chance, not small chance.

  • Reply 192 of 203

    Until governments get it into their thick heads that they need to stop spending so much of our money, they will be universally hated. The UK, Europe and the USA are particularly bad culprits.

     

    Reduce taxes and slash spending; make government much smaller and pay off the national debt. That way lies prosperity, even if it leads to initial pain. Increased taxes and increased spending means economic recession and inefficiency for eternity.

     

    Imagine if computing was the sole domain of the government. Would we have had the equivalent of Apple? I think not. We would have had Blackberry, Dell, and Samsung; the lowest common denominator.

  • Reply 193 of 203
    plovellplovell Posts: 801member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

     

    Until governments get it into their thick heads that they need to stop spending so much of our money, they will be universally hated...

     

    Reduce taxes and slash spending; make government much smaller and pay off the national debt. That way lies prosperity, even if it leads to initial pain. Increased taxes and increased spending means economic recession and inefficiency for eternity.


    No-one likes paying taxes but people are prepared to do so when they believe that they receive value for them. So I'm in support of an increase in gas (petrol) tax in the U.S. if we get better roads and improved/repaired bridges.

     

    Do you think that you get good value for all your money being set aside for the Trident replacement? I suspect not. Nor do I think that the U.S. needs the number of aircraft carriers it has, or the number of F-35s that are planned. My money is being wasted (corporate welfare for defense companies).

     

    Ironically though, paying off the national debt is not a good idea. In fact, the likelihood of that happening was one of the factors that indirectly led to the 2008 financial collapse. Back in the late 1990's the U.S. had a budget surplus and it seemed as though the debt would be paid off in a few years. That scared economists because the U.S. Government would then not be borrowing money, so there would be no Treasury Securities for sale. And the financial markets rely upon those gilt-edged securities to adjust economic conditions. But if there's no debt there are no Treasuries and therefore no "knobs" available to adjust. So Bush proposed a tax cut so that the debt would not be paid off. And we know the rest of the story.

     

    By the way - the one time when it is really important to talk about taxes if when there's talk of going to war. There would have been little support for Bush's Iraq adventure if the authorization from Congress had included provision for a war tax. Given 9/11, the war in Afghanistan would probably have been funded. But not Iraq. What a disaster.

  • Reply 194 of 203
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,038member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by plovell View Post

     

    No-one likes paying taxes but people are prepared to do so when they believe that they receive value for them. So I'm in support of an increase in gas (petrol) tax in the U.S. if we get better roads and improved/repaired bridges.


     

    We won't.  And do you have any idea how much we spend on federal highway funds?  

     

    Quote:


    Do you think that you get good value for all your money being set aside for the Trident replacement? I suspect not. Nor do I think that the U.S. needs the number of aircraft carriers it has, or the number of F-35s that are planned. My money is being wasted (corporate welfare for defense companies).


     

    That's because you're ignorant.  We spend less on defense as a percentage of GDP than we need to.  Defense is one of the only areas of spending authorized specifically by the Constitution.  And you want to cut it because "we don't need" that many aircraft carriers.  

     

    Quote:


    Ironically though, paying off the national debt is not a good idea. In fact, the likelihood of that happening was one of the factors that indirectly led to the 2008 financial collapse. Back in the late 1990's the U.S. had a budget surplus and it seemed as though the debt would be paid off in a few years. That scared economists because the U.S. Government would then not be borrowing money, so there would be no Treasury Securities for sale. And the financial markets rely upon those gilt-edged securities to adjust economic conditions. But if there's no debt there are no Treasuries and therefore no "knobs" available to adjust. So Bush proposed a tax cut so that the debt would not be paid off. And we know the rest of the story.


     

    I'd love to see some support--ANY support of this theory.  By the way, the Bush tax cut did not lead to less revenue, it led to more (like most tax cuts eventually do). 

     

    Quote:


    By the way - the one time when it is really important to talk about taxes if when there's talk of going to war. There would have been little support for Bush's Iraq adventure if the authorization from Congress had included provision for a war tax. Given 9/11, the war in Afghanistan would probably have been funded. But not Iraq. What a disaster.


     

    Speculation.  And you're using a sleazy debate tactic by labeling the Iraq War "Bush's Iraq Adventure."  You might as well call it Bill Clinton's adventure, or John Kerry's, or Hillary Clinton's, or any number of leading Democrats.  Because many supported it right up until a month before the invasion.  

  • Reply 195 of 203

    "And you're using a sleazy debate tactic by labeling the Iraq War "Bush's Iraq Adventure."  You might as well call it Bill Clinton's adventure, or John Kerry's, or Hillary Clinton's, or any number of leading Democrats.  Because many supported it right up until a month before the invasion. "

     

    Here you are clearly wrong. Not about the politicians necessarily. But by labeling my comment as a "sleazy debate tactic".

     

    It's true that many politicians supported it, and everyone was assured that it would be free. It's also true, as many suspected at the time, that much of the "intelligence" was selectively chosen to bolster the case for war, and opinions to the contrary were suppressed (there was a special office in DoD doing exactly this). Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were determined to go to war, and Bush allowed himself to be led.

    And what is undeniable is that only a fool would think that you could invade and take over Iraq and not change the power balance with Iran. The threat of Iran (many times larger in terms of population, and with whom Iraq had fought for years) was why Saddam Hussein was always secretive about WMDs. The uncertainty was his ace-in-the-hole against another invasion from Iran.

     

    Se we remove the Iraqi threat hanging over Iran, and then act surprised that Iran is now a major threat in the region. Did anyone with any sense expect a different outcome?

     

    So it really was "Bush's Iraq War Adventure". It was not required and in fact has been heavily counterproductive. It distracted us from finishing the job in Afghanistan, which now has a strong possibility of unraveling again, and removed the counterweight to Iran allowing it to extend its influence in the region.

  • Reply 196 of 203
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

     



    Ironically though, paying off the national debt is not a good idea. In fact, the likelihood of that happening was one of the factors that indirectly led to the 2008 financial collapse. Back in the late 1990's the U.S. had a budget surplus and it seemed as though the debt would be paid off in a few years. That scared economists because the U.S. Government would then not be borrowing money, so there would be no Treasury Securities for sale. And the financial markets rely upon those gilt-edged securities to adjust economic conditions. But if there's no debt there are no Treasuries and therefore no "knobs" available to adjust. So Bush proposed a tax cut so that the debt would not be paid off. And we know the rest of the story.


     

    I'd love to see some support--ANY support of this theory.  By the way, the Bush tax cut did not lead to less revenue, it led to more (like most tax cuts eventually do). 



     

    Try this ...

     

    Greenspan Calls for Repeal of All the Bush Tax Cuts

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/business/economy/07greenspan.html

     

    A choice quote...

    "While Mr. Greenspan did not endorse a specific approach, his broad support for the tax cuts nearly a decade ago was pivotal in securing one of the Bush administration’s top domestic policy goals and in providing political cover for members of Congress.

    Now, in response to accusations of political expediency, Mr. Greenspan says his approach has been consistent: supporting tax cuts when surpluses loomed, and endorsing revenue increases now that deficits are the leading worry. He also says his earlier endorsement of tax cuts was made with important caveats that were later ignored by policy makers and the public."

  • Reply 197 of 203
    plovell wrote: »
    Try this ...

    Greenspan Calls for Repeal of All the Bush Tax Cuts
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/business/economy/07greenspan.html

    A choice quote...
    "<span style="line-height:1.4em;">While Mr. Greenspan did not endorse a specific approach, his broad support for the tax cuts nearly a decade ago was pivotal in securing one of the Bush administration’s top domestic policy goals and in providing political cover for members of Congress.</span>

    <p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-bottom:1em;">Now, in response to accusations of political expediency, Mr. Greenspan says his approach has been consistent: supporting tax cuts when surpluses loomed, and endorsing revenue increases now that deficits are the leading worry. He also says his earlier endorsement of tax cuts was made with important caveats that were later ignored by policy makers and the public."</p>

    David Stockman in 2010: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129052425

    The problem is spending, the planet-sized debt and reckless monetary policy.
  • Reply 198 of 203
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     
    The problem is spending, the planet-sized debt and reckless monetary policy.


    While this is true, it is only one part of the story.

     

    If revenue is fixed, the problem is spending.

     

    If spending is fixed, the problem is revenue.

     

    The crux of the issue is that "the problem" is when spending AND revenue are too far out of line with one another. It's neither SOLELY spending nor SOLELY revenue. We can discuss which should change, or both, and by how much. But to assert that spending is the problem is oversimplifying the issue.

  • Reply 199 of 203
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,038member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by plovell View Post

     

     

    Try this ...

     

    Greenspan Calls for Repeal of All the Bush Tax Cuts

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/business/economy/07greenspan.html

     

    A choice quote...

    "While Mr. Greenspan did not endorse a specific approach, his broad support for the tax cuts nearly a decade ago was pivotal in securing one of the Bush administration’s top domestic policy goals and in providing political cover for members of Congress.

    Now, in response to accusations of political expediency, Mr. Greenspan says his approach has been consistent: supporting tax cuts when surpluses loomed, and endorsing revenue increases now that deficits are the leading worry. He also says his earlier endorsement of tax cuts was made with important caveats that were later ignored by policy makers and the public."


     

    Um, what does that prove?  That's Greenspan's opinion.  It doesn't serve as evidence of anything you posted.  It's simply the former Fed chair's opinion.  It's certainly noteworthy and debate-worthy.  It doesn't do anything for your conspiracy theory, though.,  

  • Reply 200 of 203
    plovellplovell Posts: 801member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

     
    Um, what does that prove?  That's Greenspan's opinion.  It doesn't serve as evidence of anything you posted.  It's simply the former Fed chair's opinion.  It's certainly noteworthy and debate-worthy.  It doesn't do anything for your conspiracy theory, though.,  


    Perhaps you forget that Greenspan was Chairman of the Fed at that time he made his original comments. You should read the whole article.

     

    His opinion is more than an opinion. It was hugely influential.

     

    Maybe read these also ...

    Does Anyone Still Remember Why We Have The Bush Tax Cuts?

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/07/12/does-anyone-still-remember-why-we-have-the-bush-tax-cuts/

     

    "As things turned out, the surplus that gave life to the initial Bush tax cuts had all but disappeared by the end of 2001 as the economy slowed unexpectedly.

    Where the CBO had once predicted a $125 billion budget surplus for 2001, just thirteen months later that same CBO estimate had turned into a $9 billion deficit."

    From when he was still Chairman  ...

    Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan

    <http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2005/20050315/default.htm>

     

    Maybe you'll even like Heritage's take ...

     

    The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan

    <http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/04/the-economic-impact-of-president-bushs-tax-relief-plan>

     

    You can find all these, and more, as I did by asking Google about "alan greenspan bush tax cuts 2001"

     

     

Sign In or Register to comment.